Recording Law for Voiceprints & Biometric Data in Kansas

Kansas does not have a state law that restricts private businesses from collecting or storing a biometric voiceprint from an adult customer’s recorded voice. The only Kansas statute that mentions “voiceprints” is the Student Data Privacy Act, which applies only to school districts collecting biometric data from K–12 students. That law requires written consent from the student (if an adult) or the parent/guardian (if a minor) before a school district can collect a voiceprint, and it is enforced only by the state attorney general or a district attorney. A private company like live.law does not fall under that law when it enrolls adult users in a voice-ID feature. Because there is no Kansas statute that imposes consent, notice, retention, or destruction rules on private companies that capture biometric voiceprints from adults, live.law’s voice-enrollment feature can be used in Kansas without extra state-law steps beyond the general recording rules.

Kansas is a one-party-consent state for recording conversations. That means you can record any conversation you are part of without telling the other person. The key statute is K.S.A. 21-6101, which makes it a crime to intercept a private communication without the consent of the sender or receiver. The Kansas Supreme Court ruled in State v. Roudybush that a participant in the conversation is one of the persons “entitled to privacy therein,” so that participant’s own consent satisfies the law whether the conversation is in person or on the phone. The statute also bars entering a private place with intent to listen surreptitiously to private conversations or to observe the personal conduct of any person entitled to privacy therein, and it bars installing or using a device for hearing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds in a private place without the consent of the person entitled to privacy there. The definition of “private place” is narrow: it means a place where someone may reasonably expect to be safe from uninvited intrusion or surveillance, as set out in K.S.A. 21-6101(f). Ordinary public places like streets, sidewalks, and parking lots do not meet that definition, so recording there does not require anyone’s consent.

Kansas does not have a state biometric privacy statute that creates a private right of action for improper handling of voiceprints. Courts in Kansas have not created a common-law tort that is the equivalent of laws like Illinois’ BIPA for biometric data. Because there is no Kansas law that gives individuals the right to sue a private company for collecting or storing a voiceprint without consent, a company that enrolls adult users in a voice-ID feature in Kansas faces no separate litigation risk under state biometric-privacy theories.

Kansas law draws a sharp line between public and private spaces for recording purposes. A “private place” is defined in the statute as a place where someone may reasonably expect to be safe from uninvited intrusion or surveillance. That definition appears in K.S.A. 21-6101(f). Areas like fenced yards, porches with walls or doors, restroom stalls, dressing rooms, and the interior of a private residence are private places. Entering such a spot with intent to listen surreptitiously to private conversations or to observe the personal conduct of any person entitled to privacy therein can violate the law under K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(3), and installing or using a device for hearing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds there without consent can also violate the law under K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(4). By contrast, open streets, sidewalks, parking lots, and the public-facing part of a police stop are not private places, so recording there does not require anyone’s consent under the statute. Because no Kansas appellate decision has squarely addressed borderline scenarios such as an enclosed porch or a restroom stall visible from a public hallway, caution is warranted.

Federal courts covering Kansas have clearly established that you have a First Amendment right to record on-duty police officers performing their official duties in public. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled in Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022), that this right is “clearly established,” and the officer in that case was denied qualified immunity after obstructing a bystander from filming a traffic stop. Because Kansas is in the Tenth Circuit, this decision controls for Kansas. This means you can record police encounters in public without extra consent or notice beyond the general one-party rule.

The Kansas Bar Association’s Legal Ethics Opinion No. 96-9 (Aug. 11, 1997) addresses secret tape recordings by attorneys and clients. The opinion concludes that absent statutes or other law to the contrary, the Model Rules do not per se prohibit attorneys from tape recording conversations of witnesses, clients, or others without their knowledge or consent. The opinion relies on Kansas’s one-party-consent statute (K.S.A. 21-6101) and State v. Wigley, 210 Kan. 472 (1972), and cautions that while not per se unethical, the practice is considered unprofessional and fraught with peril, recommending advance written notice to clients or opposing counsel. Kansas attorneys may therefore record conversations without disclosure under the Kansas ethics rules, provided they comply with the state’s one-party-consent law.

Imagine a Kansas lawyer uses live.law’s smartglasses to record a client meeting in their private office. The lawyer is a participant, so under Kansas’ one-party rule they can record the conversation without telling the client. Because the office is a private place, the lawyer must get the client’s consent before using a device to record sounds there under K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(4). If the lawyer later extracts a biometric voiceprint from that recording for authentication, Kansas law does not impose any extra consent, notice, or retention requirements on the company that stores the voiceprint. The only Kansas statute that mentions voiceprints is the Student Data Privacy Act, which does not apply to private companies enrolling adult users. The lawyer’s use of the feature is lawful under Kansas’ one-party recording rule and the absence of a biometric-privacy law for private businesses.

K.S.A. 21-6101 sets out a tiered penalty structure. Subsections (a)(1) through (a)(5) classify violations as class A nonperson misdemeanors, while subsections (a)(6) and (a)(8) elevate certain conduct to severity level 8 person felonies (level 5 on repeat offenses). Subsection (a)(7) creates a severity level 5 person felony for specific aggravating circumstances. The statute’s structure reflects a legislative intent to punish more severely the use of devices or dissemination of unlawfully obtained recordings, while treating basic interception by a participant as a lower-level offense. Because the statute is a criminal provision within the Crimes and Punishments chapter, it does not create a private right of action; enforcement rests with public authorities.